I think Banach means when he says we are "absolute individuals" is that we are extremely ourselves, without the influence of others or listening to others experience and putting it as "might" be our own experience if we do go through that experience. We tell each other that we are ourselves but actually we have to learn from others, reading books and etc. that help give us knowledge. Maybe an "absolute individual" is almost like a baby that doesn't know anything but having his five senses to help him explore before listening or knowing what this is called or not. Or maybe a surrounding just you, only you on this Earth, without any other humans that are there to talk to you, giving you all these ideas but rather having yourself to go and find those ideas.
I am in the middle of agreeing him and disagreeing with him. He started saying that "each of us is alone in the world" and that is sort of correct because we have to learn the knowledge ourselves in the beginning but as we grow up, we have to start learning from others. We might be alone when learning it but a lot of the times, we have others that are here learning together like school and learning from the teachers. Then he says that "Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside." It's true that we only feel the pain and all the feelings ourselves but that is because there are different types/kinds of pains, pleasures, hopes and fears. Its true also that even if we tell to the others, they might not be able to feel the same but at least they know about it and interpret in their brain how the feelings/experiences might actually happens. This part of the paragraph, I thought it was interesting because if we listen to others experience, we are being sucked in and filled their experience in a slot in our brain that doesn't have it. This affect our "absolute individualism" because we are not ourselves, the individuality that we suppose to have if we are to fill in with other people knowledge and influence and experiences will be gone.
For example, because of all the trends in this world and that people, in their brain says "You should get this, this is popular" or in other lines or wanting to get the product affects who you really are. Of course, you don't have to be totally different from everyone because that is rather crazy, but that is what I think Banach is talking about for "absolute individuals". By getting that product, there are others that have gotten it, but does that make you not who you really are? I say that is that is not true, that even if you get the same item or some same personality, you are still yourself. Just because people say you are copying the others, they have copy themselves as well because we are need the same things but just in different style that we like. That's why I disagree with Banach when he says, "No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in any one else's mind" because looking at it differently, such as the clothing and the needs, we do, can, feel what others are feeling if both of the opinions are the same. If it is about feelings, it can also be the same as well such as pain, though all the situations are different, it can still be the same.
Again when Banach was say was in the last paragraph, "Thus, to be an absolute individual is to be trapped within ourselves, unable to perceive or contact anything but the images on our mental tv screen, and to be imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us"; I agree that to be an absolute individual is to be within ourselves, and unable to perceive or contact anything because being unable to contact with anything means pureness and to be within ourselves is to think more deeply about ourselves even though there are no one there to help them. However I do not understand how an absolute individual would have a television there to tell that individual about the images on the tv screen. If there are images in the tv screen that means he/she will learn about the outside world; what I mean that outside of themselves, outside of the "dark room", the space they are in to think about within themselves and the absolute individual.
So whether I can agree with Banach is still confusing because a lot of what he saying is right but right to the point that the individual have to be in one view (not too sure about the word). Since we human have thoughts and we have to interact in people in some place, some time, not even if we want to because we have to that makes me unable to decide if I agree with what Banach is saying. But if we actually do have absolute individual possible then it would be rare and surprising that also makes me laugh because of the pureness and that absolute individual would give out, maybe not how Banach say but something along his lines.
I like your simile to the baby, that was easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteYou are stuck between agreeing and disagreeing with Banach; you understand when he says we are absolute individuals because we cannot truly experience what another experiences. Then you are confused because you think that we cannot be absolute individuals when we are interacting.
Banach is saying we are alone in a way that people do not know what we are really thinking or feeling. Even if we talk things out, the way others understand what we are saying is different than the actual meaning of what we are trying to say. When we are looking at the TV screen, the way our brain perceives the images on the screen is different than the way any one else perceives it. You can still be an individual even if you wear the same shoes as someone because there are other parts of you that make you different.
But I also agree with you when you say that people understand the need for food and shelter; if we are deprived from food and shelter, we would all go hungry and cold.
You use the wrong words sometimes like in the second to last paragraph, you wrote "when" instead of "what". Just watch out for those.
But other than that, your post was easy to understand.. thanks.